FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 02-15-2006, 12:16 PM   #141
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 1,307
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by triffidfood
Going back to the previous question, what exactly was the Old Latin Vulgate then?
There's no such thing because the term "Old Latin" refers to the various pre-Vulgate translations into Latin. The author of that web page is very confused, and those dates are all wrong.
S.C.Carlson is offline  
Old 02-15-2006, 12:25 PM   #142
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Washington, DC (formerly Denmark)
Posts: 3,789
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by triffidfood
Going back to the previous question, what exactly was the Old Latin Vulgate then?
The Old Latin Vulgate is also know as the Vetus Latina. It is biblical translations from the original languages into Latin done before the time of Jerome. It is not a single volume or anything like that but a large number of conflicting manuscripts.
Quote:
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/nt_manuscripts.html (linked to from another topic at IIDB) refers to:
I am not sure where you got that link from but stop reading it immediately. It is an obvious apologists site.
Quote:
... which confused me, since I thought the earliest "Bible" versions (Bible as in Old & New Testaments) dated to the middle of the 4th century?
Well, we have fragments of christian writings going back to the second century (probably), most of that would be very incomplete. Also, bear in mind that a 'complete' bible from that era would not be the same as a standard bible today. The most important 'complete' bibles are from around 400 or so.

Julian
Julian is offline  
Old 02-15-2006, 02:36 PM   #143
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Yes, I have dyslexia. Sue me.
Posts: 6,508
Thumbs up

Excellent thread all. A tad off-topic, but I always wondered why Greek? Do we know why Paul focused so much on Greece? Did he proselytize anywhere near Jerusalem? Do we have any extra-biblical evidence that the early Jesus cult even existed in or around Jerusalem and if so, what is it?

Also, who were the gospels written for? As I understand it, no "lay" person was allowed to read and/or didn't know how to read, so were the gospels supposed to be merely historical or some sort of cult textbook as they are used largely today?

Also, Paul's letters clearly indicated (IMO) that a form of synagogue/church hierarchy was already in place (and seems to presage the familiar Catholic hierarchy more so than it resembles Jewish hierarchy) in far away lands, which would imply either that Jesus had formed his cult long before his death or that his death happened much earlier. Any evidence that anyone knows to either confirm or contradict that?

Many thanks.
Koyaanisqatsi is offline  
Old 02-16-2006, 12:26 AM   #144
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: mid Wales, UK
Posts: 43
Default

Quote:
[Quotes from above:] Old Latin doesn't really designate a single version of the Bible but refers to any of a variety of Latin translations which existed before Jerome.

There's no such thing because the term "Old Latin" refers to the various pre-Vulgate translations into Latin. The author of that web page is very confused, and those dates are all wrong.

The Old Latin Vulgate […] is not a single volume or anything like that but a large number of conflicting manuscripts.
Okay, thanks guys, that explains it.

So, basically we’re dealing with a Christian apologetic deceit here then, I guess. I also found another site which repeats the same kind of assertions (or tries to give the same kind of misleading impression) here: http://www.scionofzion.com/olv.htm, which says:

Quote:
There are at least 17 entire verses omitted from the New Testament in such modern versions as the NIV, RSV, ESV [etc… it's arguing in favour of the King James Version & against these modern versions, it seems]

All these seventeen whole [New Testament] verses are found in the ancient Old Latin Version which dates from around 157 A.D.�
triffidfood is offline  
Old 02-16-2006, 02:29 AM   #145
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: San Bernardino, Calif.
Posts: 5,435
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi
As I understand it, no "lay" person was allowed to read and/or didn't know how to read
For economic reasons more than any other, few people in those days could read, but there was never a prohibition on reading. Literacy was actually common among slaves, because people rich enough to own slaves would use them for secretaries.

Why Greek? Because Greek in those days was the language of intellectuals, similar to what Latin became during the Middle Ages and well into Renaissance times. If you were a Roman intellectual you might write in your native language of Latin, but for nearly everyone else, if you learned to read and write, then you learned to write Greek and you assumed that anyone you corresponded with could read Greek.
Doug Shaver is offline  
Old 02-16-2006, 07:20 AM   #146
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Yes, I have dyslexia. Sue me.
Posts: 6,508
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Shaver
If you were a Roman intellectual you might write in your native language of Latin, but for nearly everyone else, if you learned to read and write, then you learned to write Greek and you assumed that anyone you corresponded with could read Greek.
Including Jews? Why wasn't everything written in Hebrew or Aramaic (i.e., the language of Jesus)?
Koyaanisqatsi is offline  
Old 02-16-2006, 07:50 AM   #147
Moderator -
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Posts: 4,639
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi
Including Jews? Why wasn't everything written in Hebrew or Aramaic (i.e., the language of Jesus)?
Because most of the audience didn't know Hebrew or Aramaic.

Hebrew was no longer a commonly spoken language even in Palestine. The spoken language of Palestinian Jews was Aramaic. Hebrew was pretty much a language only of liturgy and scripture (perhaps somehat akin to what Church Latin used to be like in Europe. The priests, scholars and scribes knew it but most of the rabble did not).

Greek was the lingua franca outside Palestine and was the language of Hellenistic Jews. They also used the Greek LXX rather than Hebrew texts of the Tanakh. Not only that but the audience for the Gospels and other writings of the NT was largely Gentile (and so were most of the authors, for that matter).
Diogenes the Cynic is offline  
Old 02-16-2006, 07:55 AM   #148
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Washington, DC (formerly Denmark)
Posts: 3,789
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi
Excellent thread all. A tad off-topic, but I always wondered why Greek? Do we know why Paul focused so much on Greece?
There is a difference between Greek and Greece. Greek was the common language throughout the middle east because of the conquest of Alexander the Great. Since the soldiers of Alexander spoke many different varieties of Greek a universal, or common, Greek emerged that eventually became the standard language that most people could speak. That form of Greek is called Koine, meaning common, as was the only language to use if you wanted to be sure that everyone would understand you. In The Passion of the Christ we see Pilate speaking Latin, which would never happen. If he had, no one would have been able to understand him. He would have been speaking Greek.

Paul didn't focus on Greece in particular, at least not what we today would define as the modern Greece. His letters span churches from Asia Minor all the way to Rome.
Quote:
Did he proselytize anywhere near Jerusalem? Do we have any extra-biblical evidence that the early Jesus cult even existed in or around Jerusalem and if so, what is it?
We do have some evidence even though it is sparse and late. It was probably mostly Jewish Christians, a type of christian that didn't survive the first few centuries of christianity.
Quote:
Also, who were the gospels written for? As I understand it, no "lay" person was allowed to read and/or didn't know how to read, so were the gospels supposed to be merely historical or some sort of cult textbook as they are used largely today?
We are not sure who they were written for although many theories abound on this topic. Most people were illiterate so they would have to be read aloud, in most cases. Michael Turton (Vorkosigan) has even suggested that the Gospel of Mark might have been performed, an intriguing suggestion.
Quote:
Also, Paul's letters clearly indicated (IMO) that a form of synagogue/church hierarchy was already in place (and seems to presage the familiar Catholic hierarchy more so than it resembles Jewish hierarchy) in far away lands, which would imply either that Jesus had formed his cult long before his death or that his death happened much earlier. Any evidence that anyone knows to either confirm or contradict that?
There are theories that Jesus lived much earlier than is commonly assumed. However, any theory about christianity before Paul is pure speculation based on extremely scant evidence. There is much speculation in this field, speculation that probably goes far beyond what the evidence can bear. The Q document and the community that produced it is one such popular branch of speculation.

Julian
Julian is offline  
Old 02-16-2006, 07:59 AM   #149
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Washington, DC (formerly Denmark)
Posts: 3,789
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi
Including Jews? Why wasn't everything written in Hebrew or Aramaic (i.e., the language of Jesus)?
In addition to what Diogenes states above it is also worth noting that Jesus and his disciples did not write the NT. It was written by either Greek native speakers or authors who grew up in areas that were hellenized.

Julian
Julian is offline  
Old 02-16-2006, 08:13 AM   #150
Moderator -
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Posts: 4,639
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian
Quote:
Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi
Did he proselytize anywhere near Jerusalem? Do we have any extra-biblical evidence that the early Jesus cult even existed in or around Jerusalem and if so, what is it?
We do have some evidence even though it is sparse and late. It was probably mostly Jewish Christians, a type of christian that didn't survive the first few centuries of christianity.
I just want to expand on this slightly. Paul speaks of a group of "Pillars' living in Jerusalem and mentions Cephas (Peter in Greek), James and John by name. He indicates tension with this group but does not go into detail about who they were or what they believed. So as far as primary evidence goes, we actually do have something to indicate that some sort of cult or movement associated with Jesus existed by the mid 1st century in Jerusalem but we know virtually nothing about them, what they believed or how they viewed Jesus.
Diogenes the Cynic is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:00 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.